Tuesday, January 22, 2013

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

To many philosophers, 'materialism' is synonymous with 'physicalism'.
However, materialists have historically held that everything is made of
matter, but physics has shown that gravity, for example, is not made of
matter in the traditional sense of "'an inert, senseless substance, in
which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist'… So it is
tempting to use 'physicalism' to distance oneself from what seems a
historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of
materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics
and the physical sciences."[1] Therefore much of the generally philosophical discussion below on materialism may be relevant to physicalism.

The nature and definition of matter - like other key concepts in science and philosophy - have occasioned much debate.[12] Is there a single kind of matter (hyle) which everything is made of, or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism),[13] or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)?[14] Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory),[15][16] or is it lacking them (prima materia)?

One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible "stuff" came with the rise of field physics in the 19th century. Relativity
shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed
energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view
that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the other hand, the Standard Model of Particle physics uses quantum field theory
to describe all interactions. On this view it could be said that fields
are prima materia and the energy is a property of the field.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

This provides for a beginning point of discussion about the parameters of our thinking in terms of the resolution to our experiences. Do they run further then the constraints we apply to them? In science your boxed in, and you replay all components in the hopes that you can extend or explain the problem and arrive at a conclusion which provides for a stepping off point for furthering the limitations of those constraints.

On the other hand, look at Professor Klein: he is studying one of the most abstract questions of the theory of functions to determine whether on a given Riemann surface there always exists a function admitting of given singularities. What does the celebrated German geometer do? He replaces his Riemann surface by a metallic surface whose electric conductivity varies according to certain laws. He connects two of its points with the two poles of a battery. The current, says he, must pass, and the distribution of this current on the surface will define a function whose singularities will be precisely those called for by the enunciation.

For me the extension here was to see that billiard balls that collide are somehow extended to believe that the greater opportunity here has been to carry the relevance to the sound that is generated at those moments. This carries in a sense as a geometrical expression defined in in Euclidean beginning about a point and then geometrically "all things follow." This is a schematically drawing if you like about beginnings, yet it is about the dynamical progression of how the non-euclidean moves even more into projective geometries. All of this is a framework for views about the world in which we live and part of the reality. So you apply this to the cosmos.

So given here a parameter with which one wants to talk about and how we can see in the materialist world, the constraint is found in the expression of correlation and meaning about the geometry we live with. This was defined by the beginning of a Newtonian experience, and in a sense I am showing the diversity of this explanation about reality as Euclid's determination and postulates which were extended.

Gauss and Riemann gave a freedom that a Euclidean could never appreciate, had not the quest of others helped Riemann to make the leap.

You have define the issue about spirit as related to "a Heaven," yet we
are here talking about the mundane? Moving from the issue of the constraints we have applied to our selves in terms of the archaic forms. We do not want to induce religion as to define our experience but to talk
about what science has to say about the entanglement we have with
nature? Would you not agree?

While of course the opening is about Heaven is it defined in terms of
the experience portrayed. I am suggesting that there is a contact with
nature that is indeed subtle with regard to consciousness defined "as
focus." So in a sense experience suggests a deep impact and meaning to
its person that can be correlated with others of similar experiences?

"Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not
circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight
line." So writes acclaimed mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in his
path-breaking book The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Instead,
such natural forms, and many man-made creations as well, are "rough,"
he says. To study and learn from such roughness, for which he invented
the term fractal, Mandelbrot devised a new kind of visual
mathematics based on such irregular shapes. Fractal geometry, as he
called this new math, is worlds apart from the Euclidean variety we all
learn in school, and it has sparked discoveries in myriad fields, from
finance to metallurgy, cosmology to medicine. In this interview, hear
from the father of fractals about why he disdains rules, why he
considers himself a philosopher, and why he abandons work on any given
advance in fractals as soon as it becomes popular. A Radical Mind

As I watch the dialogue between Bruce Lipton and Tom Campbell here, there were many things that helped my perspective understand the virtual world in relation to how the biology subject was presented. It is obvious then why Bruce Lipton likes the analogies Tom Campbell has to offer. The epiphanies Bruce is having along the road to his developing biological work is very important. It is how each time a person makes the leap that one must understand how individuals change, how societies change.

Okay so for one, the subject of fractals presents itself and the idea of process fractals and Geometry Fractals were presented in relation to each other. Now the talk moved onto the very thought of geometry presented in context sort of raised by ire even though I couldn't distinguish the differences. The virtual world analogy is still very unsettling to me.

So ya I have something to learn here.

I think my problem was with how such iteration may be schematically driven so as toidentify the pattern. Is to see this process reveal itself on a much larger scale. So when I looked at the Euclidean basis as a Newtonian expression the evolution toward relativity had to include the idea of Non Euclidean geometries. This was the natural evolution of the math that lies at the basis of graduating from a Euclidean world. It is the natural expression of understanding how this geometry can move into a dynamical world.

So yes the developing perspective for me is that even though we are talking abut mathematical structures here we see some correspondence in nature . This has been my thing so as to discover the starting point?

A schematic of a transmembrane receptor

It the truest sense I had already these questions in my mind as I was going through the talk. The starting point for Bruce is his biology and the cell. For Tom, he has not been explicit here other then to say that it is his studies with Monroe that he developed his thoughts around the virtual world as it relates to the idea of what he found working with Monroe.

So it is an exploration I feel of the work he encountered and has not so far as I seen made a public statement to that effect. It needs to be said and he needs to go back and look over how he had his epiphanies. For me this is about the process of discovery and creativity that I have found in my own life. Can one feel so full as to have found ones wealth in being that you can look everywhere and see the beginnings of many things?

This wealth is not monetary for me although I recognized we had to take care of or families and made sure they were ready to be off on their own. To be productive.

So for me the quest for that starting point is to identify the pattern that exists in nature as much as many have tried various perspective in terms of quantum gravity. Yes, we are all sort of like blind men trying to explain the reality of the world in our own way and in the process we may come up with our epiphanies.

These epiphanies help us to the next level of understanding as if we moved outside of our skeletal frame to allow the membrane of the cell to allow receptivity of what exist in the world around as information. We are not limited then to the frame of the skeleton hardened too, that we cannot progress further. The surface area of the membrane then becomes a request to open the channels toward expansion of the limitations we had applied to ourselves maintaining a frame of reference.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’. Michael Atiyah

The search for this "cup that overflow" is at the heart of all who venture for the lifeblood of the mystery of life. While Atiyah speaks to a unification of Quantum theory and Relativity, it is not without a understanding on Einstein's part that having gained from Marcel Grossmann, that such a descriptive geometry could be leading Einstein to discover the very basis of General relativity?

Marcel Grossmann was a mathematician, and a friend and classmate of Albert Einstein. He became a Professor of Mathematics at the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich, today the ETH Zurich, specialising in descriptive geometry.

So what use "this history" in face of the unification of the very large with the very small? How far back should one go to know that the steps previous were helping to shape perspective for the future. Allow for perspective to be changed, so that new avenues of research could spring forth

Gaspard Monge, Comte de Péluse-Portrait by Naigeon in the Musée de Beaune Born: 9 May 1746 in Beaune, Bourgogne, FranceDied: 28 July 1818 in Paris, France-was a French mathematician and inventor of descriptive geometry.

So given the tools, we learnt to see how objects within a referenced space, given to such coordinates, have been defined in that same space. Where is this point with in that reference frame?

What is born within that point, that through it is emergent product. Becomes a thing of expression from nothing? It's design and all, manifested as a entropic valuation of the cooling period? Crystalline shapes born by design, and by element from whence it's motivation come? An arrow of time?

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.Sir Isaac Newton-Translation of the Emerald Tablet

Again I open this blog post with the understanding that what an artist like Raphael may try to do? May include, much of the philosophy of the times, and have these things descriptively enclosing processes indicative of what they had known, but also of what these things could hide within the self.

In Man looking into Space, I wanted to show how casual our science has used these images and not realized the context to which the greater meaning had laid hidden, all the while it is used to "describe cosmology" and the science thereof.

A banner has been been written across these times to which scientists hold to all that is true. In this, the reasons to dismiss any implications of history assigned along side, is asking "what validation" can be given to anything that is spoken from our times now.

I went on in that post, "man looking into space," to explain something about the woodcuts. The art form produced, grabbed my thinking in relation to the "alchemical art forms" and grabs my thinking in regards to the "School of Athens picture."

I just wanted to say that the essence of this blog post is about "the arches," and I am moving toward that description, and what is happening when we take a picture of them. Look at the "design inherent" and "dynamics" as held to gravity in it's construction. Look at what it can signify in it's "internal expression" about our contact with the world around us. The bridging that it can signify.

I would apologize for leaving this post undone, while views pass by the essence of this post. I am indeed busy with life. So I wanted to clarify this push toward the internal dynamics, while speaking to the psychology of this work.

A scientist may side step this look, while quoting the hermetical values of what may be said by the previous first lady Hillary Clinton. In itself, an empty page, only leaves room for what had to be expressed if it was not gotten the first time? Her attempts at humour, are the attempts to break the "rigidity of the personality?"

The Psychology

Myths and metaphors, like dreams, are powerful tools that draw the listener, dreamer, or reader to a character, symbol, or situation, as if in recognition of something deeply known. Myth's bypass the mind's efforts to divorce information. They make an impression, are remembered, and nudge us to find out what they mean, accounting for the avid interest that Ring audiences have in the meaning of the story.1

Who has been so colourful in your journeys across the internet to include a wonderful language that takes you into this world of discovery of self? You had to know something about the "psychology of people" in order to give a story by nature, it's mythic description, and "most artful" to draw attention to what lies underneath.

The Alchemists attempted to perfect the One Thing of Hermes, what they called the First Matter, by using specific physical, psychological, and spiritual techniques that they describe in chemical terms and demonstrated in laboratory experiements. However, while the alchemists spoke in terms of chemcials, furaces , flasks, and beakers, they were really talking about the changes taking place within their own bodies, minds, and souls.2

Thus I have given two examples that I had promised sometime back to illustrate some of the "compelling work" that while ancient indeed, is not without it's efforts in todays world. It is the attempt to cross all boundaries, race, gender, and help one to recognize the diversity of the soul with out it's jacket. Shall we call your soul male or female, black or white?

So I am bypassing this, and that has been my message, while the efforts to climb out of the constraints that we have come to recognize within the boundaries of self. Are the realization of the diversity of "all souls" and their time in expression.

Shall we find the excuse to hold ourselves to the thoughts, that while overcoming, the constraints which still exist "within" had to be continually challenged? We have to break the "chains that bind us."

It probably seems that it is taking time to get to the essence of this post. IN order to get to the "psychological effect" that I am getting too it important to think of the images of these arches. It is about "each of us" and how we relate to the world. How, the "teacher and student" can exist within the same person.

I point to the Heaven's in the case of the "school of Athens, while Aristotle points to what is on Earth?" Shall we leave no doubt of the "physical things" while we understand that there are more ephemeral qualities to these matter states? That we move continuously between them?

The Inner/Outer World

The drawn of our focus is the external world, but, if we were to connect the internal world with that "external view" how shall we do that. How shall we describe the whole being in this exercise?

Part of this "exchange with reality," is that we can know by continually moving this information "through us" and creating "the space around us," we add to the total view "beyond what was apparent" with just the brain's condensible qualities in neurological display?

So given "this relationship" on what we can build within self, then what use all this knowledge if we cannot grow with it? What of Plato's and Aristotle, as figures within the "centre of" Raphael's painting. Their perspective, "as positions in relation too," the "questioning stance" about this "unity of the circle" in our exchange with reality?

So how would you exemplify "this exchange" with reality while "below the surface" all these "probable outcomes" are the manifestation of that which is real? You extend yourself "out there" while you also extend yourself inside? The "infinite regress," is to find oneself, with all that is "past" in front of you, can allow you to stand on what of, "the future" will pass through?

First Principle saids that you acknowledge your place in the scheme of things as you "stretch" the thinking of the mind? Increase the "neurological frontier" in those neurological connections? Increase, the fluttering of the egg's feature, of that condensible brain/body.

From here it would not be to unlikely that such dealings with the "reality of the world" would ask that we experiment and from such experiment, we learn the truth of the reality. While what the past is "in front" of us, to what goes beyond to it's future would be like asking the very nature of expression to manifest as this universe and laws of thermodynamics that the arrow of time only moves one way.

"The future" arises from within then? We'll move forward by what choices we make? About our conclusions, about reality?

That I could then give numbers and names to person's within the picture was equally exciting. I started to dissect parts of this picture quite a while back, opening of course with the "very centre of that painting." The labels supplied on this post entry should give links to farther posts about this.

Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

While one can see "dark matter" in terms of it's constraints, what of "dark energy" as it makes it way through those holes? This reveals the expansionary nature in terms of dark energy being repelled, whether you like to think so or not. This explains the dark energy developing free of the dark matter constraints and explains the state of our universe.

Here in this post the example of "how one may see" is further expounded upon to show how dark matter and dark energy are in action as a 90% aspect of the cosmos, while the remaining 10% is a discrete measure of what is cosmologically matter orientated. We don't loose sight of these relationships, but are helped to further develope them in terms of this gravitational relationship.

One should not conclude that such a bloggery as this is not without a heartfelt devotion to learning. That I had made no great claims to what science should be. other then what a layman point of view in learning has become excited about. What may be a natural conclusion to one who has spent a long time in science. Do not think me so wanting to knock on your door to enforce the asking of education that may be sent my way was truly as a student waiting for some teacher to appear.

This did not mean I should not engage the world of science. Not become enamoured with it. Or, that seeing the teachers at their bloggeries, were "as if" that teacher did appear many times. This is what is good about it.

I did not care how young you were, or that I, "too old" to listen to what scientists knew, or were theoretically endowed with in certain model selections.

You know that by the very namesake of Plato used here, that I am indeed interested how Plato thought and his eventual conclusions about what "ideas" mean. So, of course there is this learning that has to take place with mathematics.

If I may, and if I were allowed to fast forward any thought in this regard, it would be to say, that the evolution of the human being is much appreciated in what can transfer very quickly "between minds" while a dialogue takes place. Hence the title of this bloggery.

Science demands clarity, and being deficient in this transference of "pure thought" would be less then ideal speaking amongst those scientists without that mathematics. Yet, I do espouse that such intuitiveness can be gained from the simple experiment, by distilling information, from the "general concepts" which have been mention many times now by scientists.

So it is of interest to me that the roads to mathematical understanding through it's development would be quick to point out this immediate working in the "world of the abstract imaging" is to know that such methods are deduced by it's numbers and their greater meaning.

That such meaning can be assign to a "natural objector function" and still unbeknownst to the thinking and learning individual "a numerical pattern that lies underneath it. A "schematics" if you like, of what can become the form in reality.

I can't help but say that I am indeed affected by the views of our universe. In a way that encompasses some very intriguing nodal points about our universe in the way that I see it.

While I may not have shown the distinct lines of the Platonic solids, it is within context of a balloon with dye around it, that it could be so expressive of the Chaldni plate, that I couldn't resist that "harmonics flavour" as to how one might see the patterns underneath reality. How some gaussian coordinates interpretation of the "uv" lines, that were distinctive of an image in abstract spaces.

Friday, January 05, 2007

“Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate”(cited by Ivars Peterson in Science News, 5/4/2002).

I have an idea in mind here that will be slow to show because I am not sure how it is supposed to be laid out. So maybe by showing these numbers by them self? What use, if one did not, or was not able to see in another way?

I looked at the "straight lines" of Thomas Young's trajectories of photon emission and while quite understandably shown to be of consequence in this post "Interference." I was more interested in how something could start off in one place and do this rotation of sorts, and then come back for examination again in the real world. The Spectrum

But it is also in mind "that the image" has to be put here also before the numbers can show them self. What use these numbers if I do not transcend them to what they can imply in images, to know that the thinking here has to be orientated in such a way that what was simple and straight forward, could have non-euclidean orientations about it?

So one reads history in a lot of ways to learn of what has manifested into todays thinking. What lead from "Gaussian coordinates in an "non-euclidean way" to know that it had it's relation in today's physics. To have it included in how we see the consequences of GR in the world. It had been brought together for our eyes in what the photon can do in the gravitational field.

Who was to know what Leonard Susskind was thinking when his mathematical mind was engaged in seeing this "rubber band" had some other comparative abstraction, as something of consequence in our world. Yet, people focus on what they like to focus on, other then what "lead the mind" to think the way they do?

While I presented the "break through in propulsion system" used for space travel by explaining the ideas behind Susskind's "thought experiment." It is with that thinking, one can go back and re-assess what we had thought about "time travel" and such?

Some say it is like conscience effort of reflection? That we go back to the "memory reservoir (where is it-a space between the neurons?)" a "QFT realization" and drag it back up from the field to focalized surface awareness imaging, as some feature of this "time travel scenarion" currently being talk about in spacetime geometrics as warpage? As "an analogy" of the "negative aspect" of conscience?

What is this Inductive/deductive feature then of consciousness?

What is Toposense? A struggle between "discreteness and continuity?" On "large scale" we get "the jest" I think.

It's a problem though, when it becomes chaotic and complex. An "entropic" realization. As if "arrow of time" goes forward, then how is it memory can be retrieved? Or that what exists "in" the blackhole can be used to ascertain what is going on inside and adjust for the "gravitational attraction" outside?"

Perplexities of the theoretical mind

Is mind, the "brain organ?" Did "mind" evolve "according to" the brain organ? If this is so, then what new "appendage" is currently being developed now? What "attribute of mind" will define it?

I'm theoretically challenged. :)

Or, does mind "evolve" the brain matters? If this is so, then "mind" is ahead of the brain matters? What new appendage is formed depends on the mind's development?

It's as if there was another stage "before" the spacetime fabric? :) That the spacetime fabric is "the result."

Within the definitions of the literature it is then possible to deduce what is required? So this saves me the time while speaking to the new physics, of having to explain the rudimentary understandings of how I can leaped forward. No less, the idea of the "thought experiment" that is put in front of us that we create the dialogue necessary, with or without impute, to advance one's thinking.

IN the process of discovering the gravitational variances in space of "gravitational effects" how is it that a spaceship could become sensitive to the variations of that travel and slow down, if it did not have a way in which to calculate these fluctuations?

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light? So I have to re-educate some people so that they understand the limtiations that have been applied to current thinking, by what is currently out there in terms of what we know about blackholes. So breaking from of those limitation on perspective is very important with what we know now. How we can determine a blackhole.

So here to then is a wider perspective about lagrangain perspective of space that is needed in the understanding of travel in space. Implications of ways and means to determine the needed velocities of the space craft to move forward within context of determinations of gravitational influences.

So while our imagination is being captured by this "gravitational concentration" in the cosmos what use to discern the nature of the "closed loop process" if we did not consider the "thought experiment" of Susskind as I have spoken to it in the last couple of posts?

The first order of business here is that we use methods based on the understanding of the "link of entanglement" around what is inside the blackhole as a measure? What that photon is telling us in relation to the gravitational considerations influencing the space craft? IN this way, "calibration technique" allows for variances in the determination of what we see in the perspective of the cosmos as a vital differential understanding of that pathways through space.

IN "weak field understanding" we know the loop process is symmetric? Also, if gravity is combined to electromagnetism, what value the photon for determination if we had not understood this relation to gravitation effects in the cosmos? So this process then is understood in terms of developing the means to travel in space that was before not so easily determined(escape velocities for mass in space), but has now been shattered by moving beyond the paradigms of previous thought processes?

This is the benefit of thinking "thought experiments" to progress any idea. Now what has been written here, is it right or wrong?

Understanding the collision process within context of our own planet, and what information is received from other events within the cosmos allows us "to rebuild" what happens no less then what "LIGO operations" and it's gathering techniques, allows us from the complexity of the information to a thing of beauty?

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?

A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.

So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?

Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?

This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

Plato:

A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature

So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.